That's not even remotely relevant. If a law was passed giving the government the legal right to rape anyone they wanted to, would you be any less opposed to it if, after a year, they hadn't actually raped anyone? Such powers should never have been granted in the first place.

Besides, it's not unreasonable not to trust the British government with such powers given their track record in Northern Ireland.

You can't trust any government with powers like that.

I would actually prefer a Jumbo flying into a skyscraper every decade or so to the Big Brother legislation passed left, right and centre on the waferthin excuse of preventing such acts of terrorism.

That's not even remotely relevant. If a law was passed giving the government the legal right to rape anyone they wanted to, would you be any less opposed to it if, after a year, they hadn't actually raped anyone? Such powers should never have been granted in the first place.

Besides, it's not unreasonable not to trust the British government with such powers given their track record in Northern Ireland.

I guess it becomes VERY relevant if you don't answer the third part of the question AND if you don't assume that the people against whom these laws are enacted are always going to be innocent.

Whereas in your counter example the test of there being some form of reasonable grounds (as in the realistic threat of mass murder) for enacting the law is absent. Seems like a bit of a straw-man tbh.

Originally Posted by Irfan

We may not like you, your filthy rich coffers or your ratbag scum of supporters but by god do we respect you as a football team

I would actually prefer a Jumbo flying into a skyscraper every decade or so to the Big Brother legislation passed left, right and centre on the waferthin excuse of preventing such acts of terrorism.

I'm pretty certain that you can say that because no-one you know has been killed by said jumbo jet flying into tower, and because you haven't seen what a society would look like if mass attacks did occur so regularly.

I'm pretty certain that you can say that because no-one you know has been killed by said jumbo jet flying into tower, and because you haven't seen what a society would look like if mass attacks did occur so regularly.

Obviously I'm not in favour of terrorist attacks, HOWEVER I feel quite strongly that the legislation passed based on the fear for such attacks is the greater evil of the two.

Freedom of thought and expression is the greatest good we have and will never be taken away by a mullah sitting in a cave. It will, however, be erased without second thought by western politicians backed by a frigthened electorate

I guess it becomes VERY relevant if you don't answer the third part of the question AND if you don't assume that the people against whom these laws are enacted are always going to be innocent.

The third part of the question is impossible to answer, to do so would be to speculate.

And the people being imprisoned are always innocent, not literally, but legally, given that the basis of any judiciary has to be that a person is innocent until it is proved otherwise. In any case, if you have any solid reason to suspect that someone is involved in conspiracy to kill millions of people then you should really be able to find something to charge them with inside 40 days.

Originally Posted by Matt79

I'm pretty certain that you can say that because no-one you know has been killed by said jumbo jet flying into tower, and because you haven't seen what a society would look like if mass attacks did occur so regularly.

Haha, well there's barely anyone over 25 in my extended family who hasn't been shot at, threatened or been severely beaten as the result of terrorism. One was killed, but it was before I was born. Can you take my views on internment seriously?

It's ridiculous that anti-terrorism laws have been used for things not at all to do with terrorism. For example, against Iceland in the banking crisis, the planned use during the olympics of the emergency stop-and-search without suspicion, and the surveilance of whether people use their wheely-bins correctly - and many many more things too. No wonder people are worried when they bring in more.

Looks like we will have a government before the end of the day, is going to be interesting to see how exactly how this coalition works out.

Thank goodness. It will be very interesting to see the cabinet. I hope Cameron hasn't had to put too many right-wingers into the cabinet to pull the deal off, because I'm sure people like Howard, Davis and IDS would have been nowhere near it if he'd got a majority.

Thank goodness. It will be very interesting to see the cabinet. I hope Cameron hasn't had to put too many right-wingers into the cabinet to pull the deal off, because I'm sure people like Howard, Davis and IDS would have been nowhere near it if he'd got a majority.

Cameron will not be happy about it either, bound to cause him some trouble if things are not going right.

This was always the most likely result, Cameron has got one hell of a job on his hands, relationships are already strained between Conservatives and the Lib dems after these talks with Labour.

I just hope Labour get behind a new leader and get ready for the next election.

Aye, the BNP completely failed in the election. When a student in my school asked a teacher did she vote for the BNP, the teacher replied with "Never in a million years."

Btw, The Times has a great pull-ou of the election with the results in all of the constituencies if you're interested

That's one reason to stick to first-past-the-post over PR....It ensures that fringe parties like the BNP and UKIP don't win seats in the HOuse of Commons. However, they'll always get MEP seats in Europe, because of PR.....

That's one reason to stick to first-past-the-post over PR....It ensures that fringe parties like the BNP and UKIP don't win seats in the HOuse of Commons. However, they'll always get MEP seats in Europe, because of PR.....

I got a good pullout in the IoS....

You could set a minimum proportion of the vote that you would have to achieve before you are entitled to have MP's. Germany sets it at 5% and this keeps out all of the fringe lunatics.

In the Netherlands, there's no such threshold and as a result, parties who poll roughly 0.8% of the vote get a seat in the 150-seat Second Chamber. There's some proper lunatics among them, from ultra-orthodox Christians who refuse to allow women to vote to animal-rights activists.

In NZ, we have an MMP proportional representation system. Seats still exist, but you get two votes - a vote for your local MP to represent your local needs and a second vote for a Party.

If you're an Independent, you can still get into Parliament by winning a seat, but only (half? - not sure) seats represent specific constituencies whilst the remaining number of seats are distributed on a percentage share of the vote basis.

HOWEVER, an adjustment is made if you win a seat. If you don't win a constituency seat, you need to get (I think) 3.4% of the party vote nationwide to gain a 'list' seat. However, if you win a constituency vote too (for example Rodney Hide of the ACT party) the percentage of the vote at which you first gain list MPs is a lot lower.

Hence, we had a situation in NZ where the New Zealand First party gained about 3.0% of the vote and earned Zero seats in parliament whilst the ACT Party gained a similar amount of the vote, but earned 3 seats.

Anyway, my point was you don't have to lose local representation in a Proportional Representation world.

Also, in NZ, you've had quite a lot of hung parliaments, haven't you?

And you have a referendum coming up next year to decide whether you're going to keep PR, or go back to the first-past-the-post system....

I've spoken to a couple of Kiwis who're really looking forward to voting in this referendum, and getting back to the old Westminster style!